It sounds like their lawsuit was based on unfair business practices not copyright infringement, so their argument wasn't valid against the freedom of speech. The judges took noticed that redtube actually was promoting porn pay sites and wasn't just giving it away for free.
But the justices could find no evidence that Redtube's marketing strategy had anything to do with putting the plaintiff out of business:
If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites including YouTube, CNN and Yahoo.
The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster's purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers' messages.
Read the article and leave your opinions and perception behind, then you'll understand their point.